The Gables Retirement Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they received support from kind and friendly staff.

We received positive feedback from relatives regarding staff. This included, “Staff are friendly.” And “Staff are all nice and all seem caring.” People’s care records included prompts for staff in promoting privacy and dignity, such as ensuring curtains were closed when providing personal care.

We observed respectful interactions between people and staff, and people’s privacy was promoted. For example, staff were observed to knock on doors before entering people’s bedrooms.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

During our inspection, we observed some approaches to providing care and support which did not take into consideration people’s strengths, abilities or preferences. For example, everyone using the service was provided with plastic cups for drinking. Additionally, we received feedback from some relatives that their loved ones were not always wearing their own clothes. Care reviews were scheduled after our site visit, to explore how people’s care and support could be improved.

Overall, care records did reflect people’s preferences. Feedback from people and relatives included, “They asked me about [relatives] likes and dislikes.” And, “When it is people’s birthdays, they provide a cake and gifts.” Records also showed considerations were made for people’s religious needs. People were supported to celebrate cultural events, such as Easter.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and relatives did not always feel supported to make day to day choices. For example, one person told us they did not want the meal provided, preferring a lighter option. The inspection team fed this back, and an alternate meal was quickly provided. We discussed this with the provider, who assured us that people are not restricted in anyway and agreed to gently remind people they are encouraged to make their own decisions regarding their care. People’s care records included prompts for staff where it was identified people could independently manage their own care.

During our inspection we observed activities taking place, including a visit from the local church. We saw evidence of a variety activities including baking, games, music therapy, pampering and crafts provided.However, feedback from people and relatives was that further effort was needed to ensure people had enough to do. One relative told us, “I would like to see people have a more enriched day for example with options to sit outside and be encouraged to take part in activities. Even moving the chairs in the lounge so they are not all around the edges of the room would help and not having background music on all day which is meaningless.”

Friends and family were able to visit the service as they wished.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our inspection, staff did not always anticipate people’s immediate needs. For example, in relation to toileting. Communal lounges were not always supervised, which meant staff were not available to quickly respond to people. In addition, leaders on-site were not aware if call bell response times were audited or used to inform any actions to improve responsiveness.

We also received feedback from relatives including, “Staff meet [person’s] needs, but sometimes they are not proactive.” And, “[Person] is incontinent, and I have been and found them wet occasionally.”

Staff fed back that due to time spent with people with more complex needs, this sometimes took away the time from others. They also reported that lack of team-working within the staff team also contributed to this.

However, some relatives fed back that staff were alert to people’s needs. For example, support to manage skin allergies. People’s care records detailed how a person would communicate they were in pain.

Whilst some systems were in place to support staff wellbeing, such as dedicated time for staff to speak to leaders about any concerns, these were not always well utilised. Some staff did not always feel their wellbeing was promoted.

We feedback from staff regarding a poor culture which had developed between staff teams, and leaders. We were told this sometimes impacted on people’s care and support.

The provider had already identified that a poor culture was developing within the service, and assured us that plans were in place to ensure workforce wellbeing was addressed under the new management.

However, some staff felt supported at work. One staff member told us how they were supported to maintain their caring responsibilities in their personal life.